Glider near miss with Airliner (emergency climb) near Chicago yesterday?

On 10/4/2017 7:29 AM, Wit Wisniewski wrote:
I question the safety culture at the FAA and the airline operators. They do
not appear to be minimizing the risk of collision. Do they need to send
transport aircraft so much into airspace with VFR traffic that they know
exists, is hard to see, and has unknown and unpredictable location? The
faster traffic doesn't even have the right of way.

The inverted wedding cakes enable Class A traffic to steeply descend into
the Class B or C with minimal transition of airspace containing unknown
hazards. Instead, lots of approaches are made fast and shallow.

I expect the FAA and the operators to know that see-and-avoid can't be
relied upon when the closing speed is high due to limitations of human
eyesight. High closing speeds hamper detection for both the fast and slow
aircraft.

Wouldn't we have a safer environment if the FAA secured more practical
technology for the 'little guy'?

I appreciate discussion of GA safety culture, but it is the fast traffic
that causes a serious hazard to us and themselves. Gliders and little
single engine aircraft don't collide "with" fast traffic, as the reports
say. The fast traffic collides INTO the slow traffic. Shouldn't the burden
of ensuring safety through technology and procedure be on them?

Absolutely! But since the (1955?) airliner collision over the Grand Canyon
brought us "controlled airspace," the steady progression has been to throw
huge amounts of money into technology (e.g. radars, transponders, control
infrastructure, etc.) in conjunction with ever-increasing-in-scope/complexity
airspace grabs/segmentation until (IHMO) ever since "the inverted wedding cake
airspace grab" it seems as though the FAA has - in effect (though not
lip-service PR) - thrown up its hands in the "What more can we *possibly* do?"
mode, while continuing to shovel gobs of (public and private) money (e.g. [the
never-implemented] microwave landing system, ADSB) "at aviation safety."

When their actions (and inactions) post wedding-cake-grab are examined with a
cold, rational, eye, my working conclusion is unavoidably "the little guy"
(i.e. non-corporate GA) has only reluctantly been "included" via some
(reluctant) "waiving actions" in conjunction with generally unpublicized,
rarely-discussed, FAA actions seemingly having the unavoidable
likely-over-time result of killing non-corporate GA by a thousand
cuts...*including* putting the onus of failure to detect and avoid on *GA*
come the day we all dread, the day "the Beloit incident" becomes the "Glider
rams airliner! Hundreds Killed!!!" The FAA's own contributions will be ignored
in "the rush to improved public safety."

Call it (many other phrases are easily imagined) "unconscionable," lying,
"disconnected safety awareness," complacency, wishful-thinking, etc., but the
FAA's *actions* when it comes to "doing their best" to: a) maintain
airline/non-corporate GA separation; b) live up to their public words
justifying "the inverted wedding cake airspace grab" (which was effectively,
the next-to-most-recent "major step" on the airspace front, re-naming not
being counted); c) publicize their "generally unknown to non-IFR-segements of
non-corporate GA" operating steps (e.g. STARs, SIDs, below 10,000' arrivals
into the *sides* of inverted wedding cakes, etc.), are arguably seemingly
intended to "help" result in an eventual public outcry that will simply insist
on making non-corporate GA go away entirely and forever.

I wouldn't call their actions a "conspiracy" or anything, because that implies
considerably more intelligence, active planning, and individual culpability
than I'm guessing actually has existed through the years, but the reality is
today's "public discussion" effectively puts "all the onus" on non-corporate
GA for "continued airline anti-collision safety," when in fact the FAA
continues to be a(n apparently) willing, active, contributor by
apparently-negligent support of - distressingly routine, in my
rocky-mountain-west-centric observational experience - arrival status-quos
involving early descents of commercial passenger airliners into "see and avoid
airspace." Much of that - at least in the Denver area - is *above* the 10k'
250-knot speed-limited altitude.

Technology is a powerful tool, but like any tool, those used without
"associated intelligence" generally have easily predictable dangerous
side-effects. Put me in the category that's of the opinion that "today's
airspace operating realities" are an example of "technology used unwisely."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

You know what would be safer than ball roasters? Teaching glider pilots how to call ATC. Bunch of snowflakes that think installing a beeper so the world can avoid them is the way to go, so shortsighted. Transponder returns flying sailplane profiles without ATC radio contact are either going to make a big stink(everyone with incockpit traffic says they can't believe how much is out there, wait until the airlines can see how many gliders are out there) or the atypical transponder returns will be ignored. Never forget how good the human brain is at ignoring things that don't make immediate sense. Wonder if the software filters lowspeed transponder returns same as lowspeed radar returns?
I have a better safety idea, let's just cut our nuts off before frying them and ask the FAA to limit all glider activity to 10,000' Safety first. If the FAA won't do it maybe the newly crowned private airspace overlords will. As the Minden collision proves, glider pilots can't be trusted to run transponders. No one in the community honestly believes a glider pilot is going to land early because he doesn't have enough battery power to run his transponder to the end of the flight.

I stopped reading after "bunch of snowflakes" as it is now clear we dealing with a clueless troll. Glad I don't need to share the air with him.

Ramy

If ATC needs me at 250kts, regardless of altitude, they simply issue a clearance for whatever speed they need to fit their flow. They don't descend me below 10k for the benefit of the 250kt below 10k rule.

Paul A.

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:49:06 PM UTC+3, Paul Agnew wrote:
If ATC needs me at 250kts, regardless of altitude, they simply issue a clearance for whatever speed they need to fit their flow. They don't descend me below 10k for the benefit of the 250kt below 10k rule.

Hmm. If you stall clean at 130 you probably don't ever want to see less than 170 indicated. At 18k ft that would be about 240 true. So you could do 250 if asked. But not if you were at 30k ft.

The 250 limit is "indicated air speed" not true air speed. The airliner was probably doing ~300 knots at the time of the encounter.

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:12:39 PM UTC+3, wrote:
The 250 limit is "indicated air speed" not true air speed. The airliner was probably doing ~300 knots at the time of the encounter.

Well that's weird, because a B737 or A320 or whatever cruising at Mach 0.78 at 35000 ft only has an IAS/EAS of 250 knots *anyway*, even though the TAS is 450.

So unless they go faster on descent the 250 limit is pretty much meaningless.